republican party and later, latermarkey has the latest on developments in afghanistan and that country's reaction to the reelection of president obama. "washington journal" next. host: good morning. live coverage of the president's remarks at arlington national cemetery. it was on this date in 1918 that hostilities ended in world war i. on this november 11, the country remembers those who lost their lives and paid the ultimate

price varied at arlington national cemetery and other cemeteries around the country. for congress, it is a back to work week for the start of the lame-duck session including the ongoing debate over the fiscal cliff. grover norquist on the tax pledge will be one of the topics. we want to focus on whether you think the tax pledge is still relevant. give us a call. you can also join the conversation on our twitter page or send us an e-mail. let's begin with a look at some of the headlines. we are beginning with the front page of "the new york times."

andpolitico has this story -- grover norquist is optimistic

about the party being as strong as ever. he carries around copies of a map showing republican dominance all over the country. he insists the party is well positioned to thwart tax increases. grover norquist on the " newsmakers" that years after washington journal. [video clip] >> what think you could have a compromise on, is republicans should like the savings from the sequestered on defense. the democrats theoretically would like the sequester savings of domestic discretion. they both like ending the sequester, but republicans will not do it in a way that allows spending to go higher than lower. you can take it all out of

entitlements. you could delay certain entitlements in the future. republicans would rather take it out of entitlements then next year's defense budget. democrats would rather take it out of long-term and panama reform. i could see the deal being made -- or cut the sequester in half by doing it have that way and the other half the other way. that would be a real compromise that both teams could get something they prefer to the status quo. nobody walks away having lost. we did not raise taxes and we did not not cut spending. host: is interview airs at 11:00 eastern time. some of you already weighing in on our facebook page.

there is a related story inside the money section on "the new york times." "standing on the edge of an opportunity." "embracing entitlement reforms." insist theseill become part of any deal. democrats should meet them

parlay. it is impossible to get the long-term deficit under control without slowing entitlement spending. on to your phone calls. the tax cut pledge put forth by grover norquist. is it still relevant? larry from an -- larry from the mississippi on the democrats' line. caller: it is no longer relevant. it is a crying shame. they are all in the house -- they should have been speaking at what he said deficits do not matter. he and president bush were running up the deficit. they did not say anything. host: ok. thank you for the call. we will go to charles from illinois on the independent line. caller: i think it is irrelevant now. i think most republicans will

wake up and realize they have to compromise. this hardball they have been playing, they will keep losing elections now. people want stuff, but nobody wants to pay for anything. that has to end it. people that read and know stuff realize we are heading for disaster. we just fought two idiotic wars in the middle east without paying for them. never in history have we gone to war and had a tax cut at the same time. that was ridiculous. all of our entitlement programs are unsustainable. somebody has to sober up and make the american public realize they cannot have everything and not pay for it. host: thank you for the call. we will go to the republican line next. caller: of course the grover norquist pledge is relevant. taxes on people to get money to

idiots to spend stupidly like obama has is a waste of money. you did not see obama, joe biden, the clintons are any of them sending in more money than the bush tax cut rate. they are liars. they lie just like every democrat, just like the ones we hear every morning dew. just because a democrat could not say no like their mothers does not mean republicans cannot say no to a black man because he is black. host: i am trying to draw the correlation. caller: you do not know what no means? democrat women do. host: the headline "grover norquist ok with the tax stance."

that story is available on-line at the hill.com. on the twitter page -- if you are just joining us are listening to us on c-span radio, the question is, the tax rate pledge put forth by grover norquist, is it still relevant following the election? the lame duck session getting under way tuesday and wednesday this week. scott is on the phone, a republican.

caller: good morning. thank you for your show. i really love watching. i do not know enough to be dangerous, but my opinion is as to not appear as an obstructionist, go ahead and give them a higher rate on the people they want to give a higher rate to. and did you can say as republicans, see, do you feel better now? now, class warfare is over. we want you to have a minimum tax on these -- i do not know the correct percentage -- there is an extremely high percentage of lower income people that do not pay anything. at least have a minimum tax. i have understood over the years the fact some people do not pay any tax, they do not have any skin in the game. even the working poor pay $20 minimum. then they would have an instant

feeling of being part of the system. host: thank you for the call. two headlines from last week. from thursday's newspaper -- we will have more from that in just a moment. back to your calls. caller: good morning. it is irrelevant as that old guy from texas. that is how irrelevant to this tax pledges. it is of certification and appalling that one man -- here we are. we went through all these elections, midterm, every four years, and we elect representatives who are controlled by one man. that is ludicrous and the absurd. like i said, it is as irrelevant as that old guy who called from

texas. when that generation is gone, this is going to be a better world. they foster and they breed hatred. host: on the independent one from colorado. caller: good morning. i think the pledge is definitely relevant. i do not think the government needs more money. they are wasting money they have. it is bloated, wasteful, and it needs to be slashed down. a lot of power is to be transferred back to the states. there would be more control, more transparency. i think a greater concentration on spending money wisely. host: thank you for the call. jan has this on the twitter page. "the weekly standard" --losing

can be liberating. kathleen is on the phone on the republican line from new york. caller: good morning. i do not understand how it can be relevant at all. how can one man interfere with our democratic process?

my rights are being denied. i have elected officials to speak for us. i have not elected him as a dictator or taking it. host: and the him being -- caller: grover norquist. i think that man is deny us democratic rights. host: and you are a republican? caller:. i am very disappointed in -- i am very disappointed with the democrats -- the republican party. host: who would you have preferred as the nominee? caller: there is not anybody there i would have preferred to be honest with you. host: the cliff is a hard place to compromise -- that is the peace and "the new york times." higher taxes on the affluent cannot solve the long-term deficit. he goes on to say the deficit, a

product of hire costs can make a significant dent over the next decade. that is in part because upper and texas have fallen so much over the last 30 years. here is more from the interview with grover norquist. we take the program yesterday and it airs at 10:00 eastern this morning. he responded to why harry reid often mentioned grover norquist's name in speeches. [video clip] >> harry reid is not like to talk about the tax issue. he talks about revenue when he means tax increases. people want something that they are not talking about out loud, is signaling they do not have popular support. it is easy to say grover norquist and some guy in kansas goes, who? it is not a very good campaign thing. i do not like grover norquist or

i disagree. i will debate him if he wants to. he is just try to avoid the problem he has that he is trying to raise taxes. historically it slows economic growth and does not help things. the tax issue is a very powerful issue going back to the revolution, the civil war. a whole bunch of times taxes were front and center when we had divisions in this country. the tax issue is important. sometimes people say me. it is a tax issue. host: grover norquist, he is our guest. you can watch the full 30 minutes interview at 10:00 eastern time and 6:00 -- it three of those -- 3:00 for those on the west coast.

it took a couple of days for the official tally to come from the sunshine state. this from "the chicago tribune." tens of thousands of schoolchildren are missing so many days of class, their educations are in peril. little is being done to get them back in school. back to your calls. is the tax pledge still relevant? caller: good morning. i think the tax cut pledge his treasonous and should be a violation of the oath of office for all of these people who are in office and ran for office. the other thing is that there was a debate between david stockman and daniel patrick

moynihan 30 years ago about saying there was a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the country so that democratic leaders could never afford social programs. that is what the tax cut pledge to me seems to be about. host: thank you for the call. the other key player during the negotiations is the former house speaker in the democratic leader in the house nancy pelosi. there is a story this morning from politico. the piece says "with her political future on the line, nancy pelosi is keeping out of sight. she is sending a memo to her democratic colleagues thinking them for your enthusiasm and for electing more democrats to the house. she has been silent about her

own future since election day. democrats and picked up seven seats more than expected by many analysts. far short of the 25 needed to put nancy pelosi back in the chair she lost two years ago. rumors about her plans twirling through democratic circles, nancy pelosi has not given a hint about what is next. she has returned to california. sources close say not to expect any announcement before next week. democrats have a caucus meeting for wednesday." next is ron from taxes on the line for independent. caller: i am from kentucky. when these elected officials get elected to office, they sign a contract to the american people. they should not ever put their name on a contract to any certain group.

they sign a pledge to work for all of the people, not just certain ones. i also think when the tea party got there thing go in, they do not want to come together in any kind of compromises. i just think it should be borne of a moderate thinking in congress to work towards the middle. i do not like the extremes either way. host: did the election change that attitude? do you think there will be compromise, and not the extremism on either end? caller: i hope so. from what i hear from mitch mcconnell, i do not like. i am a kentucky citizen. it is about time for him to

retire. i think mr. john boehner wants to work out a deal. i really do. he has to get through. kantor and some of the others on the extreme right. -- eric cantor and some of those on the right. i do not like the extremism. it is not helpful to the country at all. host: thank you for the call. we read this at the top of the program.

on our twitter page, there is this -- nancy cook puts it this way. "game of chicken." her answer, probably not. george is on the phone from the line for republicans. caller: i just think when the voters spoke on the past election that we as citizens are being shortchanged. we vote our -- our constituents voted for representatives, but we are not being represented. in the last 30 days of the campaign, i decided to be an

independent. i was not convinced everybody was being fairly treated with the tax cuts. therefore, i believe speaker john boehner, rip cantor, reid, and the president to sit down and realize we elected them to look out for our best interests. what we do not get that, you get the backlash you got on the last election. host: a couple of other opinion pieces. later on we will talk about the future of the republican party with the former chair. bill press will be joining us in 15 or 20 minutes. "romney is president."

and what is next for the republicans? another piece from "the weekly standard."

back to your calls. larry is on the democrats' line from ohio. caller: good morning. i think the grover norquist rule should be abandoned. we are americans. we all need to work together. republicans, democrats, and independents, this is our country. it was founded in a manner that we all live and work together. the pledge that they took on was a negative. it was not what we as the people of the united states voted for these people to do. it was something they adopted to do. it took the pledge to make president obama a1-term president. that is not something that we did. we just sent a message that was not what we wanted.

this country needs to turn it around and work together. president obama and john boehner need to work out a deal. the house of representatives needs to work with a. we need to quit fighting wars on a credit card. lyndon baines johnson installed a surcharge tax to pay for the vietnam war. if that is what we have to do, it needs to be done. host: to life for the call. the president counters the opening bid on the fiscal cliff. it points up the president is the first democratic to win reelection with a plan to raise income taxes and fighting bipartisan congressional leadership for the first time next friday speaking to resolve -- seeking to resolve the fiscal cliff issues.

[video clip] >> last year i worked with democrats and republicans to cut $1 trillion worth of spending. i intend to work with both parties to do more. as i said over and over again, we cannot cut our way to prosperity. if we are serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue. that means asking the wealthiest of americans to pay a little bit more in taxes. that is how we did it when bill clinton was president, and that is the only way we can afford to invest in job training, education, and manufacturing. already i put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. i am open to compromise a new ideas, but i refuse to accept any approach that is not balanced. i will not ask students or seniors or middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people making over

$250,000 a year are not asked to pay one dime more a in taxes. this was a central question in the election. we found out a majority of americans agree with my approach. now we need a majority in congress to listen, and they should start by making sure taxes do not go up on the 98% of americans making under january -- under two and a $50,000 a year starting january 1. congress should permanently extend the middle class tax cuts right now. even as we negotiate a broader deficit reduction package. it would give millions of families and small businesses the peace of mind that will lead to new jobs and faster growth. there is no reason to wait. we know there will be differences and disagreements in the months ahead. that is part of what makes the political system work. on tuesday use of loud and clear you will not tolerate

dysfunction or politicians who seek compromise as a dirty word. now when so many families are still struggling. host: the president in his weekly address. we will hear from john boehner in a couple of moments. this from "the washington examiner." with this caption --"your move." from twitter -- bob is on the phone from virginia on the independent

line. caller: what i think is the speaker should do nothing until the new congress is seated. at that time, there will be no more bush tax cuts. the democrats should be happy. if they have any plans better, let them bring them up. host: thank you for the call. the front page of "the washington post," karl rove still resolute in the face of defeat.

front page of "the washington post." robert is on the phone from new york. republican line. caller: good morning. the tax issue is very relevant. there was a research paper that showed the bush tax cuts added $2.40 of output to each dollar retained by the citizens. it also showed the american recovery and reinvestment act took away $5.80 of output for every dollar spent by the obama administration. the next thing is, where obama kids always wanting to say the rich do not pay their fair share, the federal reserve in

2010 in their spring issue stated that since 1986 to the present, the top 1% of taxpayers percentage of overall income of the overall tax revenue, it has increased 3.25% per year. obama is a flat-out lie air. anybody who pays --in the third debate he talked about needing more research. why do we need more research when this clown does not pay attention to the research out there. he told obama his policies are bogus. this is a man he recommended for the position, but he does not pay any attention to him. host: thank you for the call. this from one of our viewers.

the question we have been asking is whether the tax-cut pledges still relevant. grover norquist is on newsmakers and about two and a half hours. the republican response to the president's address had this to say. [video clip] >> this week i offer congratulations to president obama along with an alternative to sending the economy over any part of the fiscal cliff. instead of raising tax rates on the american people and accepting the damage it will do, let's start to edge of the problem. let's focus on tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and lower tax rates. instead of accepting arbitrary cuts that will endanger the national defense, let's get serious about shoring up the entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of our country's massive growing debt. 2013 should be the year we begin to solve the debt through tax reform and in time reform. together we should avert the

fiscal cliff in a manner that ensures 2013 finally is that year. shoring up entitlements and reforming the tax code, closing special-interest loopholes and deductions and moving to a fair, cleaner, and simpler system will bring jobs home and results in stronger healthier economy. that means more revenue, which is exactly what the president is seeking. without a strong economy, we will never be able to balance the budget and eraser country's debt. this can lead to a common ground. the president and i had a brief conversation this week, and i am hopeful we can continue this talk and forge an agreement that can pass both chambers of commerce. if there was a mandate, it was a mandate to work together to do what is in the best interest of our country. right now, what is best is getting the economy moving again and keeping the moving so we can begin to restore our children's feature. host: again, based on the

posturing from the weekly addresses yesterday -- that from "the new york times." there is also this headline from the "new york daily news." there is the story on the front page of "the washington post."

there are some related stories as well to all of this. let me show you two of the headlines. this is from "the new york

times." and from "inside the washington post" -- next is your calls on the tax cut pledge. is it still relevant? good morning. caller: i believe the republicans should be more civil and work for the people. i believe people that make more than $1 million should be taxed. because there might be a small business that might be affected by somebody making $250,000 and over. i also believe social security should of been given to someone making over $250,000, and

especially for the millionaires. lots of rich people are receiving social security, and they really do not need it. there are others with middle- income and low-income they really have worked hard and do need the money. i believe we should keep our money in our own country and not be sending money to other countries. we need to rebuild our own country. the war in iraq was a psychological warfare. we probably cannot afford that. even bush stated that he made a mistake about the war. host: thank you very much for the call. let's go to some comments on our facebook page.

some of your comments on our facebook page. victor is on the phone from florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. host: how are you feeling? caller: the radiation is not my kind of therapy, believe me. i want to wish everybody a happy veterans day.

i mean it from the soul, not the words that come out of tv. host: when did you serve? caller: from 1948 until 1972. my comment is on the deficit. all the parties have reasons for what is causing the deficit. most of americans know that -- i have cancer, yes. a tumor. it will cost the american tax payers over half a million dollars just for a what i will be going through on chemotherapy and radiation. a few years back, i found that i had implants that cost $285,000.

they want to charge me $1,285 for that. i wrote to the state attorney's office to justify that amount of money. nobody answered my question outside of the state attorney's office. that upset me. so i sat down. what would be the best thing that i could do, which i wrote to obama, i wrote to congress, i wrote to all in medicare -- how to solve this health care problem we have? that is the biggest part of the deficit. host: did you get a response? caller: i got a three page letter from obama. i got it from the medicare.

all of them had put in, it is the law. it is legal. with 50 states we have one american flag. if everybody was to pay $1 from the street cleaner all the way up to the president for every thousand dollars that they make and put a cap on some of these items that i mentioned by the $485,000 for an ambulance ride, it will not only help the health care but it will help solve the deficit and jobs. >> thank you for the call. thank you for your service. i hope the treatment is successful and you get will send. caller: thank you for asking. host: from our twitter page --

conservative author craig shirley has this piece in the " the washington post." owen joins us from maryland on the republican line. caller: back to the subject of the pledge. host: is it still relevant? caller: no. because of what the lady said about the congressional of, any federal official. i was a senior official on george bush's administration. it includes a statement, bare truth and allegiance, to the constitution. that supersedes any pledge one would take.

host: to life for the call. coming up later, a look at what is next for both political parties. we will get the perspective of bill press. michael steele will be joining us later in the program. live coverage of the president later this morning at 11:00 eastern time. politics and fiscal cliff, some of the issues dominating the sunday morning programs. good morning. guest: yes, on the tv talk shows, the aftermath of the elections. the pending fiscal cliff. and the resignation of david patraus will be on. david gregory will speak with chuck schumer and tom corburn.

saxby chambliss and patty murray. aaron shock and donna edwards. at 2:00 it is fox news sunday with chris wallace. dianne feinstein, kent conrad, bob corker, chris van holland, tom price. at 3:00, see n n "state of the union." she will be speaking with jerry brown and john huntsman. also, carlos gutierrez and gary bower. at 4:00 we run out the talk show

readers with bob schieffer speaking with david axelrod. listen to all of the program starting at noon on c-span radio. you can also listen with our free apps on the iphone, android, or black. . -- blackberry. >> 2013 should be the year we began to solve our debt through tax reform and entitlement reform. i am proposing we avert the fiscal cliff together in a manner that ensures 2013 is finally the year that our government comes to grips with a

major problems facing us. >> i am open to compromise and new ideas. i am committed to solving our fiscal challenges. i refuse to accept any approach that is not balanced. i am not going to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 are not asked to pay a dime more in taxes. >> the newly elected congress starts in january, but the current congress has work to do in what is called a lame duck session. work is expected on the pending fiscal cliff including the expiration of the bush tax cuts, raising the debt ceiling, and planned cuts to domestic and military spending, also known as sequestration. follow all of the floor debates tuesday at 2:00 the stand.

-- 2:00 eastern. of the unknown that was dedicated by president warren hearty in 1921. commemorating veterans day and the end of world war i. we will have live ceremonies later this morning on the c-span network. this headline from "the washington post." good morning. guest: nice to see you. host: sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. guest: he loses all the time. this is tough, because dick morris is a tough contender . tough contenderkarl rove has earned the title of the biggest horse's ass in politics.

he is given credit for getting george bush elected. he did not. the supreme court nominated george bush in 2000. since he has been in the white house has been brought about everything. he spent $300 million this year of other people's money. we do not know how much money he made for that deal. in nine senate races he got one win. he has spent maybe $170 million against barack obama and for mitt romney. he had a horrible record. on election night he tried to recreate florida 2000 on fox news by insisting that the network fox was wrong to in calling the election for president obama. the number crunchers said, no, you are wrong. he made a fool of himself. still today he insists he is right. i would hope that nobody would give that guy a dollar to spend in any future election.

i think his career in politics should be over. not that i feel strongly about this, but he also has this enormous conflict of interest. he is getting all of these people's money, spending it for mitt romney, then he is on fox news as a supposedly independent political commentator and is writing a column for "the wall street journal." there are so many conflicts there is a pleasure mind. host: and on the lecture circuit. guest: which, by the way, i am on that too. he has all kinds of things. his losing record is what points out that his time in american politics has come and gone. host: what is next for the political parties and the president? our guest is bill press. he concludes with these words --

there is a boundary to what luster accomplishes. the road he zoomed down in 2012 was toward a diminished place in his own party. guest:karl rove talked about a total realignment of the country for the republican party. but at the last few elections, and this one in particular. the republicans once again lost the white house. they lost ground in the senate and a lost ground in the house. then you have rove saying "we won." he actually said we had a good night. who believes that other than rove? i think the party really needs -- others have said, they do need to do some real soul- searching. rove will never get there

because he refuses to accept reality. host: this is what craig said -- guest: i would say if i were in -- michael steele is coming up next. $10,000 the michael steele will agree that when you look out at a party -- if you are a republican party leader and you look out and president obama got 55% of the female vote, he got 71% of the latino vote, 93% of the african-american vote, 60% of young people's vote and mitt romney 1 one constituency,

that you have a party whose message is not resonating with 21st century america. if you continue on the same track the party will keep losing ground. host: from "the weekly standard," in both cases president bush and president obama winning by a margin of victory by 2.4%. guest: that does not surprise me. i knew it was going to be minutes before the republican party through mitt romney under the bus. i do think he was a weak candidate, but the republicans nominated him as a behind him and insisted he was the answer rayers.ica's pereir they did not have any choice. when you look at the other choices in the primary, who

would have done a better job? herman cain? michele bachmann? jeb bush did not run. they got stuck with mitt romney. host: california has gone from a republican to a purple to a solid democratic state. what has changed? ronald reagan winning back in 1984. guest: i am proud to take a little bit of credit for that four at one time being the democratic party chair in california. the republican party is a mirror of the national republican party in the sense that i think they lost track of where the country was moving. republican registration in 63.5% reagan's day was republican. today it is less than 30%.

democrats did a good job of registering voters, but the republican party lost all of those people by their extreme right-wing philosophy and policies. host: pete wilson on the issue of immigration. why is that a mirror image? guest: we always had a hard time convincing latinos to vote, to register and to vote. we called them the sleeping giant. the sleeping giant woke up. he will send put an anti- immigration initiative on the ballot. the latino community came alive. a registered. now, they are a power in california and many other states. that is what has been the republican party from behind. when you support comprehensive immigration reform like john mccain did but then refuse to do it when president obama is in

the white house, when you have the nominee of the party, mitt romney, saying people should self deport. so their house and go back to mexico. you cannot win latino votes when you make war against them . what againstin california has happen nationwide. -- what has happened in california happened nationwide. i am not sure how much credit arthur davis has. i was disappointed when he left the party and supported mitt romney. i did not buy his reasons for doing so. i would disagree with him on this. i do not think republicans should write off the african- american party at all. they are talking about jobs,

improving the economy. if they are willing to save medicare and social security are going to stay, they can get african-american votes. to write them off as arthur davis suggested i think would be a colossal mistake. host: we will get to your calls in just a moment. you can also send us a comment on facebook or twitter. what surprised you about the election? guest: was surprised me was the breadth and the depth of president obama's victory. in this split america with 5% of people independent voters, i think it was a very decisive victory. if you look at all of the stories we were reflecting before hand, this will take months to figure out, this will go to the house of representatives. baloney. president obama won the electoral vote 332-2 06. that is pretty solid.

he won the popular vote by about 3 million votes, which is decisive. he won eight out of nine of the battleground states were all told were so close they could easily go to mitt romney. he did not lose in north carolina by much. host: were the polls wrong? guest: from my perspective there was too much attention to national polls. i think we have become a victim of posters. i blame those of us in the media for paying too much attention. we do not vote the way. we know that. every night on the news, what led the news, what was the first question i was asked. what do you think about the latest gallup poll. i have talked to pollsters who say that gallup ought to be drummed out of business. they give everybody a bad name.

nate silver, he got a lot of flak but he got it right. host: amy is on the phone from georgia. caller: good morning. i noticed throughout the campaigning that the republican politicians seemed to have complete contempt for the republican voter. they treated them as if they were low in formation, gullible, would fall for anything the, believe anything. when romney went to ohio and told a horrible embarrassing lie about jeep going to china. that tells me they feel the republican voter is somebody who can be led by the nose and manipulated, can be fooled.

i am wondering if that is a part of why mitt romney did so poorly? guest: i would see it a little bit differently. i do not think they were taking the republican voters for granted, i think they fail a lot of what mitt romney and paul ryan was doing was to sure up the base. i had this conversation last night abouted to akin and richard mourdock. the idea in the 21st century anybody should spend any time trying to determine when is rape okay and when is it not okay. this should not even be a question. karen hughs who is george bush's communication director said the next time i hear anyone questioning anything about rape i want to cut their tongue out. mitt romney didn't consent it, he said i support him but i

don't agree with what he said. so this conversation last night he had to say that because he could not ail nate his base. they spent too much time coddling and suring up his base who is votes they could have gotten. republicans could have won this election. president obama with the economy the way it is was vellnerble. i would say they had the edge going into this election and they blew it. >> let's go to a viewer who says bill press calls out the pollsters as sheisters. >> no i don't think all of them but i wouldn't trust their numbers on anything. >> let's go to the independent line in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. if you could elaborate on two items. one is university of maryland

and a couple of other schools have come out with studies that say if you watch fox news you're less informed than somebody who doesn't watch the news. and that's the results of the study. secondly, when boehner said the american people don't want tax increases, if you could remind sfokes that the house -- folks that the house numbers for the democrats out weigh the republican numbers by half a million votes so all the people that won on the democratic side versus those where they still held the house, they were out voted by a half a million voters. host: thank for the call. guest: i do think it is true that regular fox watchers just like regular rush limbaugh listeners live in a parallel universe and are often ill

informed on the news. i adopt have to bash fox the studies show that. on the second point john boehner does say the american people don't want anybody's taxes to go up. i don't know what he bases that on. we go back to polls again but every other poll i've seen among democrats and republicans 75% of the american people think the wealthiest americans have had a good free ride for ten years and ought to go back to paying their good fair share. here is the thing, the biggest challenge facing these guys across the street right now particularly republicans in the house is between now and christmas. the choice is as president obama said friday there is a bill that passed the senate that would give 98% of americans, anybody making under $250,000 a year a tax cut.

republicans have to decide are they going to allow the 98% of americans to get a tax cut or are they going to hold them hostage to also get a tax cut for that 2%. this is a very clear issue and the first challenge for john boehner. 98% versus 2%. they have sided with the 2%. can he get them to give'9"% of americans the tax break? if not the republican party is even in more trouble. >> let's me show you this editorial. the republicans have no foothold or room to negotiate on this. the spt going to drive the bargain. guest: the republicans are not dealing from strength. they were in 2010 when they elected 63 freshman and they could balk anything that the senate sent over there or pass anything they wanted.

but john boehner was the first one to admit in a call to his caucus members they didn't win and when you don't win you're not dealing from a position of strength. president obama is. >> the next presidential election -- guest: don't ask me. host: this is the front page on sunday which hillary's next move. she's stepping down as secretary of state. let me read to you "the new york times." >> if hillary clinton runs for president again she will be the best candidate, >> i know people ask that

question and i'm not going to ask you whether you think she'll run but what is her decision making process moving forward? guest: first of all, let me say i'm a huge hillary fan. i am the president of the hillary clinton fan club. i supported her in 2008 over barack obama. so if she ran for president i'd be very excited. i plead for time out. here is what is wrong. if we in the media start speculating about 2016, even about 2014 we are not doing our jobs. i got to say that because we can't -- here is what is wrong with this country today our pertle campaigns. it's not supposed work that

way. you have a campaign you fight like hell and win or lose and then you take time out to govern. and that's what these people across the street have to do not campaign mode but fix problems. i know i sound like i'm preaching. take time out from a campaign and let us start talking about the issues and informing people about climate change and the fiscal cliff and immigration reform and stop this speculation about joe biden or hillary clinton or anybody else. let's pass a law, you can't talk about it until 2015. >> we're going to be covering mario this week. >> republican line, good morning frank. caller: good morning.

i think mitt romney was a victim of the tax code. it's pretty difficult to imagine that a guy that's making millions is paying 14% tax. and i'm a republican and many republican friend who pay 20, 30% t. tax code has to be taken to the smith sonian institute but the lobbist have runed this country. all income should be ordinary income and should be taxed as such. people get their original deduction. they get 10% for mortgage interest or whatever they want but everything else is taxed. three bracts and you pay down the debt. that's what congress has to do. it's not this loophole or that loophole, it's all the loopholes.

it has to be ordinary income and that's the only way. and healthcare has to be taken off the back of industry and i'm sure you can have a tax code that gets rid of corporate tax. host: thanks for the call from pennsylvania. guest: let's run frank for congress. he's dead on. host: he's a republican. guest: in temples of the tax code he's dead on. ordinary income have three bracts and let people pay what their taxes ought to be. tax reform is so badly needed in this country. and over and above whether or not we raise taxes on the 98% or 2%, the fundamental question is are we going to reform the tax code. it's going to take a long time but we got to get busy. there are so many lobbyist in town because they want to tax this or that and by the time

they are through wit it looks like swiss cheese. that's the challenge. the only place i disagree with frank, i wouldn't call mitt romney a victim of the tax code. i would call him a great beneficiary of the tax code making all the billions that he did through loopholes and swiss bank accounts and the cayman islands and the bahamas getting his tax rate down to 14%. he took very skillful advantage of the tax code. >> on our twitter page who drives the conversation the media or events and issues. host: go to dem cralts line. with bill press heard on radio and on current tv. caller: good morning. how are you on this wonderful

veterans day? guest: good thank you. caller: i'm a veteran living close to fort bragg and god speed all the guys and families because they are the one that is do it instead of talk about it. i've got a couple of things. do you have a pen mr. press. if you could jot down bush on jobs january 9, 2009. it's got a nice chart there that goes back to truman that says that democrats create a whole lot more jobs than republicans during that period. and obama needs to take his proposals on the road because he's the only candidate that won nationwide. everybody else won local and statewide elections and seems like the words are blurred between bribery and lobbying

and that's our problem today. and one last thing on corporations if they're citizens why aren't they charged with neglect homicide when somebody dice in the mines like a guy who just fired a bunch of people at the coal company. he had a lot of people to die there. host: thanks for the call. >> many points, first of all, let's not forget what this three-day weekend is about. it's to honor and slop our veterans and we should all take time out and do that. there were many points. the one i would touch on if you go to my website my latest column maybe a couple of weeks ago now i did a whole column on that. if you look at the numbers, forget your politics, look at the numbers. under democratic presidents versus republican presidents more jobs have been created

under democratic presidents. president obama has created 5.4 million jobs private sector. 4.5 million were lost under bush. so president obama has brought back those jobs and created more. historically it's always been trufmente but under democratic presidents the market has gone up more than under republican presidents and under democratic presidents the economy has improved. so look at those numbers and ask why so many people believe republicans are better for big business? historically they're not. host: the house of represent ives working and compromising with the president, had they cave in is the question?

guest: cave in isn't the word here. fight for what they want and what they believe in but be willing to recognize this this game of politics you never get 100% of what you want. they say okay we've got as much as we can get so this is a good deal and we'll agree, admit we don't get 100% but president obama doesn't get 100% but we service the american people. but that's what has to happen. i may get in trouble with some of my liberal friend. i believe if you let john boehner be john boehner he would make a good deal for the country. but if tea party continues and prevent them from leading thon issue and compromising where he has to then i think they're in more trouble than they are today. host: is this a reagan move?

guest: that's a classic example i think. they had a great relationship and they didn't compromise their principles. ronald reagan didn't throw his principles out the window. he was willing to sit down. ronald reagan he raised taxes seven out of eight es years he was in the white house. and in honor of ronald reagan we have to sign a pledge never to raise taxes. that's caca. how about barack obama and chris christie, it's possible for them to work together and that's what the american people want. host: nancy me loss si fell short of recapturing the house the democrats picking up seven seats. i'm wondering if she's going to

step down or a leadership fight within the party. guest: nancy is a great leader and a long time friend of mine. another former chair of the democratic party by the way. i don't know what's going to happen there. i believe that she will remain and should remain the democratic leader of the house. i don't know that i haven't heard any talk about a challenge. i think the last thing the democrats in the house need right now is an internal squabble. they picked up some seats. they've got the white house, they've got the senate. i think their agenda ought to be on moving forward with the issues we've talked about immigration reform and tax reform. host: our guest is bill press radio and talk show host. how many books are you the author of?

>> seven. host: my show is a combination tv and radio show 6:00 a.m. on the west coast. you go to current com come come and you go to it's sime you will cast on talk stations nationwide so if you're progressive enough then you can also listen to the show or see it on current tv. host: ron from columbus georgia, independent line. caller: good morning. i do agree with your comment about campaign is over, let's govern. but i am a veteran and i've been a company commander and my point is is this, i cannot call

my boss and say i cannot get my company commanders to agree on how to accomplish a commission. i won't be a company commander very long. here's the point, the american people are the boss. there should be a law that's presented to congress that says from mr. president on down to congress, if you cannot solve the country's problems you need to go. it's just that simple. americans are sick and tired of the partisan politics and we just don't see the greatest country in the world moving forward the way it's supposed to be. and it's because you've got these guys playing partisan congress. there should not be a republican or democrat, it should be america's party after you're elected to congress.

guest: i agree with the principle but we have the means in place if we use it and that's an election. every two years members of the house of represent ives are up for reelection and you have a chance to look and see if you believe they're getting the job done and if they're not boot them out. i'd even be for term limits in congress which congress would never adopt. so if people take their elections seriously and follow the issues seriously we can talk them out. but repeating a point made earlier, you know it used to be that way in this town where in between elections you had leaders of both parties bob dole or george mitchell or trent lot and we could name some others, they knew they were there to do the people's business in between elections and they were solid democrats or solid republicans but they

got together and were willing to compromise. that's how you move things forward in this town. i believe it changed with newt gingrich. newt basically told people never compromise the democrats. they are our enemy. well political parties should not be enmis. they should be partners. i believe newt poisened this congress and they're still drinking the poisen. >> i want to get your idea on these headlines. from the "new york times."

guest: this is a tough issue and it's very sad for america in my opinion to see a goodman have to fall on his sword over having an extramarital affair. i dare say if you went across the street to this beautiful building here and told everybody in the senate and in the house republican or democrat who had ever cheated on their wife or husband that they had to leave, this would be an empty building. so i think we have a double standard. he made this decision. he wasn't fired. i'm sorry he did. i think as a country it's time

that we were a little more tolerant about human failings. he admitted he made a mistake. it looks like he wants to keep his marriage with his wife. it's up to the two of them to work that out. and for paula, whatever with her husband she's got to work that out. i don't think one affair or more, i don't think that should destroy his career or prevent him from doing a good job at the c.i.a. we haven't seen any breech of national security alleged even. no criminal charges are going to be filed. it's not like he was sleeping with a russianian spy. i think it's tragic. host: go ahead don. caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. press have you a right to your own facts but not to your

own facts cht. and you made a statement that white demographic were the only one president obama won. guest: give me one. caller: exit polls. host: these are based on the exit poles 55% for the president 44% for mitt romney among meals 52% and ob 49% among blacks hispanics and asians 49% or brob 59% or mitt romney. guest: i'm looking at the "new york post" has a full page with every demographic i was

interested to see the catholic vote barack obama got 25% of the catholic vote. i went through the entire thing and may i say you are dead wrong. caller: i'm going by exit polls and that's the only way "the washington post" can do it is by exit polls. you oh an apology to congressmen you said that basically every congress person has had an extramarital affair you said it would be an empty building. you oh an apology to those that didn't. guest: you prove me wrong, i'll apologize. host: let's go to democrats line. caller: first of all i'd like to say when it comes down to our election, i'm a democrat but i did not vote democratic because i believe in what barack obama said. i didn't vote republican because i believed in what mitt

romney said. i am an american and in this day in age it seems like everyone would put all that prejudice those lies that who shot james stuff down and govern our country the correct way. we have serious issues out here and if anyone is mad, it should be those that are in hunger lines, people without jobs that need jobs, children who don't have parents. these are things we need to address. we need to address how our children will be the next congresswomen, doctors, president, we are needing these things but nobody is focused on that. their bickering back and forth on who won this on this election, who should have did that on that. barack obama is president. he is president four more years regardless of who voted and who

didn't. he is that. host: t that's a statement guest: that's a statement not a question and our first priority should be what is best for the this country and we are americans first not republicans or democrats. i found the page i was looking for and it afirms not to beat up on don too much. president obama got 55% of the women vote and mitt romney got 44% of the women vote. that's the way it is. host: let me show you george will predicted mitt romney would win with about 312 electoral votes. but this morning he says lib rals have an inherent but advantage to which many of them are related as employees or clients.

>> i was you surprised that he made out that prediction that romney was going to win. usually he is more careful but at my rate i think george is making a good point in this sense. i question that democrats are more motivated than republicans. there were so many stories where people were writing off the liberal base for barack obama bauds they didn't feel it the way they did in 2012 and the tea party was much more

energized because they saw they could win this election. so i think there is a lot of motivation on the republican side, i certainly saw it. but here is what was lacking barack obama had the best most focused laser like ground game we have ever seen in american politics. they did it for four years. they knew in ohio house by house by house who was their vote and who wasn't their vote and what those people ate for breakfast. same thing in florida. they had a ground game and mitt romney had none. top republican told me mitt romney had no ground game. they cal lid on enthuse asm to get people out to the polls. it doesn't work that way. so i think this obama campaign this is going to be this year's textbook campaign for how to win elections in this country. it proved you can't do it with

money or tv adds alone. it doesn't work. you have to get out on the ground. host: what advice would you give the president that the problems and per rills of second terms whether it's policy issues like i ran -- iran contra with ronald reagan. what advice would you give the president. guest: i would say three things. mr. president you won, be strong and mr. president go for broke. deal from strength. you're never going to have to run for reelection so go to the wall on every issue you believe in. host: including entitemment and social security. guest: i don't know what you mean by entitlement reform if you mean fixing them that's

what president obama believes, yes yes yes. and i would say there were some issues in the first term where i was disappointed. let's take climate change president obama didn't go up to congress and fight for a strong bill. now the white house will tell you we didn't do it because we didn't have the votes. to me that's giving up before you fight the fight. i think on climate change and immigration reform and entitlement reform on this fiscal cliff on the tax break for 98% of meshes, on a balanced approach to fixing our fiscal crisis the president has to go up there and fight every fight. have steel in his backbone this time and i think he'll have a legendary second four years. >> ohio independent line. caller: good morning. i have two comments. one involves the definition of

the word compromise and the people need to use it. there are only two people who don't need to use the term compromise if you're a dictate or or king. host: or a pope. caller: and the other is a kid. they need to identify which group they belong to. dow want to be a dictator or a spoiled kid because everybody else in between has to compromise that i know of. and one other thing concerning past presidents, why is it that it is considered a sin -- i have no complaints about george bush that much my main complaint was dick cheney why sit nit we talk about bush,

they put knives in the back of dead democrats and they do it to smuttle their face. they do it to jimmy carter who is like the walking dead and bill clinton. but george bush don't do that. we're too business si -- he's been dead for 70 years. guest: he's fire this morning. on that second point i agree with him on the compromise. on the second point that's just political talk and i would encourage you to ignore it all just like i do and recognize it's people just being kind of loose and frive lose and after all pun dents get paid by the word so they have to say something even if they're

wrong. host: george knew when he made the prediction his column only required three words, i was wrong. guest: he didn't say that did he? host: no, as far as i know. guest: american people like to hear people say they are wrong when they are wrong. even dick morris he is seen his time in politics come and go. host: he predicted a landslide. guest: he predicted sharon brown would have to funed a new job. he predicted bill nelson would lose in florida. he got every single thing wrong but at least the next day he said i was wrong. carl rove has yet to say that. host: do you have another book in the works? guest: i have one in the works.

host: thanks for stopping by. guest: it's always fun. host: we'll have the republican party taking your calls and we'll talk about afghanistan and the way forward for the president as he continues to that 2014 deadline for u.s. troops out of the afghanistan. the ceremonies get under way later this morning we'll have live coverage at 11:00 eastern here on c-span. washington journal continues on this sunday november 11. we'll be back in a moment.

>> some patients require special therapy, hip knows sis is effect nive certain types of battle northeast rose sis f. >> now you're deep asleep. we're going back now, going back to -- one of the most important procedures is group psychotherapy. here under the psych tryst guidance the patient lerns to understand something of the basis causes of his distress. >> i'd like to see if we can get some illustrations about how one's personal safety would stem from childhood safety.

if i had done anything wrong afseshamed of i would tell them what i had done so i kept it to myself. >> this weekend on c-span 3 let there be light. his world war ii dk meantry on combat trauma and treatment. today at 4 p.m. eastern. >> i want my fiction to be intensely journalistic because unless you get out and look at what is going on these days, you're going to miss the things that are influencing yourself and everybody else. >> best selling author is live at book fair international. he'll discuss his latest novel and its take on the city of

miami plus questions from the miami audience. later tonight on afterwards in the fine plant a look at the way corporations try to rob you blind on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we want to welcome the former lieutenant governor of maryland michael steele welcome back to c-span. what happened tuesday guest: i think from the democrats perspective they got an affirmation of the policies and the direction that the president arctic cue lated. as a i would say there wasn't much art lation there but they showed they are spoir in getting their vote to the table and with the pick up in the senate i think a lot of people

kind of looked at the senate as one of those fire walls that the republicans needed to pick up two seats was a profound effort as well. and it really makes the policy discussion take on a very different hugh than it otherwise would. and i think for the republicans it was one of those come to jesus 340e789s politically where they have to reassess and evaluate whether they want to be a relevant political party going forward. host: how do they do that? guest: they have to get out of the mind set they've been stuck in and i think for two bright shining years you can prove you can win coming off the ash heeps of 2006 and 2008 the brand is in the bank. the money is nowhere to be found. we were able to turn around by enabling the parties to build a grass roots game on the ground. i mod led my chairmanship

politically how we operated with a 50 state strategy putting emphasis on states where republicans had not won in the past to win some. win a county council's race or state legislature race and build that from the bottom up. to have a message that resonated with folks and a lot of that was missing in this campaign for a lot of reasons. all the finger pointing is not helpful. second guessing should we have picked mitt romney, well you did. should he have picked paul ryan? absolutely, he's a smart political figure and has a lot to taufer party and resonated well with the electorate. so all of that second guessing is typical washington inside crazeness. you need to hunker down and look at your ground game and

your organization and your message and mess jers. we need mess jers who look like me. we need mess jers who are hispanic, asian american, women cross section of folks who represent communities all across the country. host: your successor of the republican national committee may seek a second term as chair of the party. what are you hearing? guest: i've heard people say that and that's a decision he will make on his own. and the party will judge whether losing two senate seats and the presidential and not much of a ground game is worthy of a reelection. host: a landslide loss for big money. voters ignored most of the outside ads but the danger of unlimited spending remains and a lot of focus on american cross roads and the money spenlt by carl rove. those people should ask for a

refund guest: good luck with that. the return on investment was not the best that it could or should have been no doubt. i don't know that's something that cross roads and their donors will have to work out. many of those donors were moved away from the r.n.c. and that may have had an impact on the effective ground game. they adopted strategies that a lot of people looked at and questioned whether or not they would work. it was more of a beached what he will than anything else. i think there were a number of aspects of this where money and i think this election showed that despite all the hype and hysteria at the beginning of the campaign about super pacs and big money, at the end of the day had very little impact in terms of getting people to vote one way or the other. a lot of networks and tv

programmers had a very luck crative spring, summer and fall but beyond that i don't think much else happened with it. host: from the weekly standard four more years and losing can be liberating. he points out that conserve ives have a role to play guest: there is some truth to. that i think whenever you get into battle you're consumed by it, that's your focus. the fact of the matter is have you every expectation going in you're going to win. when you dobt it takes your breath away and you have to step back. what i learned in 2009 with

very little to work with and go on simply because the brand was not what it was before that was you sit down, you lay out your mission and you engage at a level that you hadn't gone before. you really drill down and understand exactly what is going on. and what we did was almost like a 12 stefment we assessed our failings, we listened to what people were saying. we looked at the landscape to see howed the changed and how we needed to adapt. and that's the same type of strategy that needs to go on now. if you want to moan and point fingers you can do that but you're not going to get to solving your problems. host: last week saying there were mixed messages and when you do that when you send

-- decpwhrit didn't ressniteth nate with most voters because what -- how we came off and sounded was judge mental and really unwelcoming to people. i can't tell you the number of people who would come up to me at a local store and say i would like to be with you guys but i'm not feeling the love. at a real base level that's what people look for in their political party. they want to feel some level of connection and acceptance, i'm not going to agree with everything or you may not do everything i want you to do but there has to be a connection there. and that was important for to us re-establish early on. when you look at a state like new jersey with chris christie

running for governor in 2009. how do you climb that mountain and yet you find with a good candidate like christy a strong message and he focused on what people were concerned about their taxes, the spending in the state and it resonated. he didn't get caught in the weeds of issues that people weren't focused on. that was a trap that was set. we fall into it every time. we feel if we don't talk about these issues people won't know what we believe. people know what we believe whether it's abortion or gay marriage, family issues and the like. people know that. if people are talking about this over here the economy and jobs, then let's focus on the economy and jobs. it doesn't mean don't focus on the other issues. focus on what people want to talk about. explain how your policies and your leaders will make a

different for them. host: was mitt romney the problem for them? guest: no. mitt romney went through that primary process like everybody else and state after state republicans voted for him. if they didn't want mitt romney to be that i shall nominee why did they vote for him? only so you can get to the general election and trash him when he loses. that seems stupid to me. so to say mitt romney was the problem. if problem if you're going to point to it is the republicans out here who said this is the guy we want and didn't support him. this is the guy we want but didn't help him get across the line. you can't put this on the shoulder of mitt romney necessarily. how he runs his campaign you can pick at that from here to . there but to say as the nominee he was the problem i think is silly particularly given all the other individuals who were

in the race that ran through the primary like he did. he won. host: we'll get to your calls and comments. join us on our facebook page or send us an e-mail or tweet. let's turn to the policy side of this speaker boehner telling the republicans to basically fall in line. he said let john boehner be john boehner he can negotiate a deal with the president without getting pressure from tea party caucus members. guest: i agree. let john boehner be in a position to negotiate from a position of strength not from a position of looking over his shoulder and having to second guess and ultimately a position of weakness going into these talks with the president. the spt emboldened and he could say john boehner i don't need you and if you keep this i'm going to run against your

entire congress and all of you are going to be gone. he's looking at the longer ball as well. you have all these house members who will be in their fourth year by the time they get to 2014 and if there has been no movement. if the country per seeves republicans are not working trying to resolve the problems, then guess what happens in twho years. the public will turn and say that's it. we're just going to go in a completely different direction. so boehner needs the short term and long term opportunity to position the party on policy so that they can art cue late what we believe whether it's on taxes or a whole bunch of other issues from a position of strength not weakness and i think the house caucus should listen to his leadership. the man knows what he needs to do and how to do it. he's done it before. so let boehner be boehner. host: the tax code, changes to

the overall tax code next year. how likely is that? guest: i think it's likely. it won't be immediate. you want to get it right as you possibly can but that's a leverage point for john boehner. let's not focus on the latesth rates, we know there are all these other areas where we can begin to grab revenue and pull it back into the government. and i think that's going to give him some leverage but he's going to need that leverage going into this and not be second guessed. host: our first call is from maryland but i want to put this on the table. is michael steele interested in running for governor in 2014? guest: i don't know. i love my state. it's where i was born and i'm not happy with what i see there. a lot of frustration.

we've had a lot of spending in the state and a lot of tax increases and i think people are looking for something that is going to be a little different. it's a tough state and -- host: tough state for a republican? guest: tough state for a republican and it's one of those opportunities you have to look at carefully. i haven't made a decision than. i'll leave that to smarter people than me. host: good morning. caller: you just read my mind. if you ran for governor i would back you because i've seen a change in you personally. i've been watching and you and it was disheartening for the contest with the republican party treated you and i didn't like it. but what they need to do is come into these communities which they discounted like the black community. they never speak about us being

republicans. that's not true. i'm a conservative and a moderate. i'm not a liberal. and i work hard every day and i really like you and i voted forer witch without a doubt. my thing is the policy -- has to stop, people taking pledges. there is only one pledge we are supposed to take. they should listen to what you are telling them and there might have been a different outcome. when they started doik what they did to that president you know what it made us feel like. guest: i heard it. i heard it quite a bit. and you cannot start a conversation about how to move the country forward when the position is well our sole

objective is to make i you a one-term president. so that resonated with a lot of people. i think a lot of how we republicans have expressed ourselves has been rather bone headed. it is been ten eered. it has been not keeping in mind what people are actually looking for in your leadership. they are looking for you to make some hard choices and to move the needle for them. and i don't think we did that. i go back to the whole debt debate and when we were talking about the end of the bush tax cuts part one, and how does republican party get on the wrong side of a tax increase? when you're looking at your message and it's that off, you have to pay attention to how people are hearing and seeing it. and i think you are exactly right that the party now has an opportunity to fine tune its core and focus on communities.

my first official visit outside of washington and this is three days after i was elected chairman was to harlem for a town hall meeting. and people looked at me and said why are you going there. i said because that's where the votes are. if we don't go to communities around the country that don't look like typical republicans we're going to go to the way of the wigs. host: the republicans should listen to the dems, they know how to run and win. guest: i think there are lessons to learn. i looked at the strategies that the democratic national committee under howard dean's leadership put into position. and he got vilified for a 50 state strategy just as i did. you don't appreciate why are you putting money in arkansas

or south dakota or ga well that's where we're going to elect republicans. you get that momentum of electing people and spending time and money on the ground to build the party from the grass roots up makes all the difference in the world host: let me share with you a cup of key demographic areas. as we move down to the issue of race mitt romney getting 59% of the white vote the president 39% of the white vote but the president getting a vast majority of the black, hispanic asian and designated as other. in terms of education mitt romney getting 51% of the college vote. president obama getting high school, some college and post graduate study the president winning 55 to 42. >> guest: huge demographic shift. across the board success by the

obama campaign to identify its voter and for a period of over a year to target that voter and on election day pull the trigger and have them go vote. i laughed in the summer when people around this town were harping on the obama team hemorrhaging cash, why are they spending all this money this early in the campaign? they were spending the money putting it on the ground to beat our behinds in november. they were investing in technology and infrastructure and a ground game that was beyond 21st century. their ability to identify their voter even when that voter looked like our voter. that's the interesting thing that your statistics are showing folks who looked like a republican voter turned out to be an obama voter because they identified them, worked them

and got them to the polls. host: blake is on the phone on the republican line in alabama. caller: decirn [indiscernible] that was a long long time ago i guess. i see first of all -- i was curious about a couple of numbers but before i get to that just a quick point about the money that people are talking about, how much money, that money made no difference and it seems like money made all the difference. in the summer romney had no money and obama was savaging him and he could not respond.

and he was -- as a rich fellow and didn't care about the people. he never responded because he had no money. money was the problem. but coming to the statistics what i'm curious what percentage of the total vote, not the democratic party, total vote was black vote, african-american american vote this time compared to what normally it is because obama being on the ticket and what that would have looked like if he was not obama? guest: i'm not sure what the final number was a percentage of raw number of black turnout across the country. i know in certain regions of the country it was very high. don't know if it reached the 2008 levels.

i do not suspect it did. i think that there was falloff by the frin turnout but -- african-american turn out but it's important for the g.o.p. to realize for the first time in history minorities elected the president of the united states. the coalition of african-americans and azeyans and gay community, all these political interest around the country co-alessed in a way that made a difference and that's important for the future of politics. host: i heard last week brob won with the coalition of 1972. guest: you could say that. host: these are two tweets the ground game is good but messaging goes a long way. ask michael steele about the

republicans must protect and explain individual liberty. guest: both of those tweets are smart and right on. the first one in terms of the messaging the three m's. money, message messenger. we don't have a problem getting money. our donors were very generous and we thank them for them. but when it comes to the message and the mess jers that is where it false off the cliff. it's not finding one or two individuals to do it. you have to bring a whole lot of folks not allowed to enfwage in an honest way because they live in a part of the country or people don't want to deal with, they don't vote for us over there. people said that about my race in 2002, we shouldn't do this because we're running against a

kennedy and it's maryland and they won't vote for us. if we didn't engage on ideas and a strong message i wouldn't have been in the game. number two, with respect to ron paul and i said at the time of the convention the way he was treated was an offense. this man has been everyone is coming around full circle on his views on the role of the fed and the government when it comes to our individual liberties and freedom. to have the party not allow him to speak at a national convention to me was offensive because when you have the ability to bring together 18, 25, 30-year-old's to the table and you just turn your back on that, it shows you do not have the foresight to show where our

politics are going. host: our guest is michael steele, former chairman of the republican national committee. the former lieutenant governor of maryland. you have one selection than you have lost elections. we saw mitt romney back at his headquarters, but what the thinking is going through personally? it's tough. he ran before in 2008. for him, this has been a very personal journey to endure what he had to indoor with respect to his face, the assaults on that, the assaults on his character and integrity, assault on his integrity as a governor to lead. it's very personal. you have to find that space and get in that space where you really stand aside and say

that's the politics of it, but it's hard to do. thank you for your run. you bested a big field of republicans, he weathered the storm, and you put together a very strong field. that first debate in september was one of the strongest by had ever seen. he was the governor of his state and i was lieutenant governor and we became close in our association. he was a guy i was always looking for. i would see glimmers of him and it's very frustrating that people around him thought he needed to appeal a certain way. he would have to say things that you know he did not necessarily think was part of the corps. i get the frustration now having to go and live with that loss and try to move forward.

host: on the independent line with michael steele, good morning. caller: one, i would like to just agree 100% from the caller from maryland. i'm an african-american male and i love you. when you were the chairman, i did not appreciate how i really did not push that against some of the more forceful voices. overall, i think the message was right on point. after your loss seeking the second term, what i would hear coming from you, i think it is the tenor and the message that this country greatly needs. it was the frustration in the electorate right now and i think you could be a very, very major force in this political time to

come. lastly, i would like to agree with you 100% about the ron paul factor. it from paul had run against a president i love, i really -- that would have been a head- scratching moment because i love ron paul. his voting record of 25 years actually matches what comes out of his mouth. guest: amazing what consistency will do for a person, right? there's something about ron paul and his leadership. again, you can scratch your head on some of the foreign-policy stuffy has espoused and may disagree with him on that, and that's fine, but he engages you in a debate of ideas around some really strong principles, like the constitution. ron paul will estimate bridget still be a strong player.

his son will be a very important voice in the next year or so. i get it. my style is not necessarily the warmest for some conservatives who like the it straight laced stand in the background. i thought of the chairmanship needed to be a vibrant part of the political process. that meant putting it out on the street. that meant doing some shows that were not necessarily traditional for the rnc chairman to do. i just felt very strongly, and i still do, that the power does not rest down here but arrests out in america in the streets. you saw this happen again in this election. it was all race centralized back in washington because we will tell you how to do it because we know best.

the reason they hired me was to come in and break that up. some did not like that, whoever else down in other parts of the country and that's fine. the goal was to push the envelope and push the party to recognize that they needed to play differently. we did that to build a national memory coalitions around the country and reelected two african-americans to the congress and we lose a seat two years later. how does that happen? we are continuing the momentum and it stalls. why is that? it's not me. i get all might bus and i do a speech to charge up the hill, when you get there two years later what? there's no continuation of the

command to charge forward. the party needs to do a little soul-searching to see how we move forward. host: should reince priebus have two more years? guest: that is something the members need to think about. 700 legislative seats around the country taking up senate seats and raising $198 million in an off-year collection without the senate? that's what i did. and i got fired for it. are your host: interested in running again? -- host: are you interested? guest: it might shake things up. host: are you interested?

when would you announce? guest: we've got time. host: next caller. caller: i have been watching c- span this year more than i have ever watched. we now live in a world that is very diverse. we haveu're saying, o other races in here and then they have come in to government in lost the momentum. we need people that are diverse and of the world. .t i don't care what they say there's a lot of poverty in all parts of the world as well as

people. he was the candidate, but he did not represent. he was not coming through. whenever he started off campaigning for, he just kept flip flopping. you have to be for everybody. everybody. that is where president obama 1. host: they alienated women, latinos, asians, gays, black people, etc. guest: this is no longer the party of old white men the, nor should it be. we should be more reflective of what lincoln bargained for. it individuals of all

backgrounds, shapes, sizes, and colors having a home in our party. as always confused me as to why some people have a problem with that. if i invite you into my party and you are not pro-life would you agree with a whole host of issues that are fundamental to our founding, the government, tax policy, whatever, that's fine. if i invite you in and you have a view that is different than mine or other issues, that's fine. the fact that you want to be a part about this system. about us. if we are putting up a wall saying we need to check and asking if you are this or that? i'm sorry. go to the other side it. we want to continue to send people to the other side?

every month, 50,000 hispanics turned 18 years old. you mean to tell me we're going to look at an 18-year-old deng hispanic person and say, "you know what? join the other side because that is 50 plus years we have lost that vote. are we prepared to do that as a party without really talking about us being the party of assimilation, the party of opportunity? we want to follow the rules law. we want you to have access to opportunities and citizenship here the right way. this is how you do that. more importantly, we want you to follow the dream that brought you here in the first place. i give him kudos for putting that on the table but he

sacrifices his campaign for it but could not be honest and it speaks to the reality of this brave new world we are in. it does not mean we need to throw open the borders and invite everyone to come in. no one has ever said that when talking about a path to citizenship. they're talking about doing the right way and a way in which your responsibilities, as a future citizen, are understood and appreciated from the moment you come on soil. they are not asking for a giveaway or anything special. that messaging goes right to their point. host: the rnc will kick you out for thinking like that. guest: they did. [laughter] host: if you were chairman and gannett, what would you ask yourself? guest: what the hell are you

doing? i'm not seriously looking at the opportunity right now, but they need to shake things up and get real. anyone running for that job has to ask themselves what they are prepared to do to reach the breadth of this party? where are they prepared to go? who are they prepared to talk to to make this party look and feel more like america? people want to be part of what we are doing. they identify with us on so many levels. very pro-lifer guy, but i have always had a problem with politics getting into my personal business, politics making decisions that my pastor, my minister, my rabbi are responsible for. let me work that out with them. you helped me achieve the pathways to success, the

american dream, all that, and make sure policies allow us to free up the economy to free up opportunities. yes. i appreciate the profound statements on life, similarly for the democrats, things were putting in your platform are things that are not necessarily your strong suit. leave that to the people in communities who are responsible for those social issues because they are so personal. you cannot publicize them so broadly to make a decision for me or you when we are coming from two very different perspectives and experiences. we do have common ground on other things and that is something the country wants us to focus on. host: conservative author in "the washington post" today talking about the president viewing same-sex marriage as an

individual liberty right. he says the president has a more liberal view on that issue. norman, okla., on the independent line. caller: everybody wants john boehner to compromise, but what about harry reid? he's an old bonehead. [laughter] i think mr. romney was probably the nicest man that has ever run in the past 50 years. he just was not -- he should not have gone for the carotid artery the chicago way. guest: i love it. you raise a good point. i was struck by his comments in a the end of the campaign when

governor romney talked about working with the democrats in the senate and harry reid made the comment that, basically, that was not going to happen. harry reid has to recognize that, yes, he picked up two more seats in the senate, but that's not an invitation sent by the country to do nothing. put a budget on the table. dense serious about solving the nation's problems. stop the game of playing the thinking you're just going to sit and wait and throw back on the house members for not doing anything. very little was done in the senate over the last two years. certainly with the last four years with respect to something as important as the budget and harry reid now has the responsibility of to indicate his willingness to work with house leadership if we're going to get through sequestration in the fiscal cliff, the bush tax

cuts, and a whole host of other issues on the table. not just this interim, but most especially after words when we need to get the nation's business done. host: they lose and immediately the course begins. republicans must change or die. he was more ford 1976 than ronald reagan 1980.

guest: i think a lot of what was said there was true. tuesday. he spoke more like ford and reagan? you picked him. again, we knew that going in. he was a governor with a record. we all understood where he was coming from a long before the tail end of this campaign. the second-guessing for me is just baggage that we don't need right now because it really does not advance anything. it is just analysis everyone knew going in. you did not know that he was a northeastern republican? this whole idea of modern versus conservative, again, you start picking up the edges like this and were still avoiding the fact that he's a republican with thousands of the views. that's where i think charles is bright. conservatism did not die on the

hill of this campaign. the way we articulated conservatism and the way we talked about it is what did us in. when you start conversations that people read as offensive to them or insensitive to them, you have to check what you are saying. we never did that. host: let me assure you these comments from senator kreuz from texas. he sank to the tea party when he won it, but want to share with you when he said in terms of his message to the president and what your message would be to republican leaders in the house and senate. this is ted kreuz from tuesday night, election night. first, to the republicans, what message would you give them? guest: the time for licking wounds is over. time to get to work. sit down with paul ryan, of eric cantor, which mcconnell, john

boehner, a strategy to lay out our principled arguments of how far we will go and how far we will not go. what we intend to put on the table with specificity -- do it. get ahead. but the president in a position where he has to respond, not just push aside. that, for me, in the next few weeks will be very important. i like the tone. it's great. we're going to work together. we get that, by all moment -- kumbaya moment. how are we going to frame the argument and the policy itself? mr. president, this is what the american people want and need in order to fully recover. we're willing to go to the water's edge with you, we will not go out into the lake and brown. [video clip] >> tonight is a tremendous

benefit to republican women, tea party women. for all of you, this is your victory. let me say this. if president obama means what he says on the campaign trail, if he is interested in working order to bring the people together to reduce the deficit and get people working, i will work with him. but if he continues down the same path, then i will spend every waking moment fighting him. host: your thoughts? guest: the most important thing

he said there is a fit the present is serious, serious about working with him. but the president is going to hang out in harry reid's corner of the world and let him get away without putting a budget on the table, not getting serious in the negotiations and really drilling down on something like simpson-bowles, what do you expect the opposition to do? they're not just going to sit there and fall in line just because. both sides now have an opportunity, i believe, to really come to a table with a serious plan and the let's have that fight. let's have that debate about the policy, whether it is tax policy, changing the code, extend the bush era tax cuts and leaving the whole $4 trillion off the table. let's have that debate.

as the posturing and the finger- pointing starts, they are not ofrious, then the ted cruz's the world do not have any good faith because there is nothing to negotiate over. host: michael steele, former chairman of the republican national committee, thank you. what's next in the president's second term with regards to afghanistan? we will be joined by daniel markey and pat quinn from the associated press. first, a look at the guests on the sunday morning news programs that can be heard starting at noon eastern on c-span radio. >> good morning, steve. we expect the aftermath of the election continuing the conversation. we will also be talking about the pending fiscal cliff and the resignation and the david petraeus. at noon, nbc's "meet the press."

new york democratic senator chuck schumer, oklahoma republican tom coburn, and texas democratic rep elect, walking the castro. -- joaquin castro. saxby chambliss. at 2, chris wallace will be talking with senate intelligence chaired dianne feinstein and kent conrad and. and toms van hollenbec price. at 3, candy crowley will speak with jerry brown and former utah governor and former republican presidential candidate jon huntsman. carlos guitierrez.

at 4, bob schieffer hosts cbs's "face the nation," with david axelrod, south carolina republican senator lindsay graham. at noon starting on 90.1 in the d.c. area, sirius xm 119. you can also hear us on our free app for your iphone, android, and blackberry. brought to you as a public service by the networks and by c-span radio. >> i need some help over here. >> he just rolled himself out.

>> he was issued this today. he has taken 10. "that's ridiculous. >> at some point, he could stop breathing from too much of narcotics and we will be doing cpr. >> where is sergeant robert yates today? >> we ended up following him after the plane ride for many months. he ended up entering himself into an innovative program at walter reed where they ended up using acupuncture, meditation, other techniques to wean him off all the drugs he had been on. through this program, he was able to walk out of walter reed on his own two feet. i really commend the military for two things. one in, allowing us to tell this story, both the good and bad,

and for recognizing this problem. by recognizing that there is this problem of over-medication and they are looking for outside ideas in how to fix it. that is the whole pieces of the film, the metaphor of "escape fire" is that the status quo is not working. >> more with matthew heineman, producer and director of "escape fire" tonight at 8:00 on c- span's "q&a." clucks the tomb of the unknowns at arlington national cemetery. one of the most impressive scenes here in washington. the regular changing of the guard that takes place 365 days out of the year on a daily basis and it is about to begin shortly. the president traveling to arlington, va., for the ceremony at 11:00 commemorating the 11th-

hour the 11th day of the 11 month when world war i came to an end and now we've honor all who served in american military battles. the tomb of the unknown in virginia. daniel markey from the council on foreign relations. i want to begin with a general question of what the country looks like, who was running the country, and what our presence is felt like by the afghan people? guest: president hamid karzai has been there coming up on 10 years as president. in 2014, he is expected to step down with the next set of elections. you have a country that is still very much in turmoil despite the fact we have been at war there for quite some time. it's a place where you have seen accomplishments, say, on education, improvements in

certain varieties of services delivered by the government, development, roads, things like that, but nothing near where you would need to see the kind of progress that people had hoped for after this long war and the expenditure by the united states. you have a place that is politically a bit still in turmoil, a president who has been relatively ineffective and, by many accounts, and the administration and government over there that is relatively corrupt. a security situation has not gotten a great deal better. it is quite problematic as the united states anticipates its military withdrawal at the same time over the next few years, year and half, as we are expecting a political transition there as well. host: as we move in 2014 and targeted with a drawl, how do we

get their backs guest: to me, it's very difficult to see how the current pact leaves us in a place where we would like to be. what we like to see is a drawdown of the 70,000 forces to something, and we do not quite know what the number will be, 5000-ton of thousand, perhaps less. -- by thousand-10,000, perhaps less. the afghanistan force rs are being built up t. numbers look good, i believe there are 350,000 forces army and police. that's a good accomplishment but those forces are not capable of maintaining stability in the face of an ongoing surgeon si. there have been reports in the past several months that as we depart the insurge siprses and

you get a return to a general civil war. host: much has been written about the relationship and the lack thereof of the president of afghanistan. what is the relationship like and how does that affect the die namics? guest: let's put it in relative terms. the relationship isn't like it was in the bush administration. what you saw was a very personal interaction, very routine exchanges between president bush in many ways perhaps even as much as once a week they would communicate. president obama came in and saw that as problematic. he you saw that he wasn't doing a good job and he wanted to distance himself and mike it clear this was going to be a more normal relationship with afghanistan. he's done that. and it came at the out set of

the obama administration with some trouble. it caused a real rift to open up between the administrations and i would say that now you've got on the a place where it's a reasonably workable relationship but i wouldn't expect there is a lot of love loss between those two. they see each other as partners they have to deal with but don't have a high estimate of each other. he routinely cast gates the united states for it's military operations, for civilian kass al tiss and a variety of other things that the obama white house doesn't take well to those criticisms and the white house has criticized him for his effectiveness and corruption and so on and that doesn't go well. so it's not a great relationship but there have been periods when it was worse during the past four years.

host: let's go to a map of the region. you brought up pakistan. some reports saying it's hiding some of these militants that are involved in the upheaval that's going on within the afghanistan population. guest: yes, ever since 9/11 it's been widely appreciated that many of the afghanistan taliban leaders were forced out by the u.s. war into pakistan. for a period of time the expectation was that pakistan would do more against those fleing taliban when it could. increasingly however the skepticism mounted and pakistan per seeves some of those militants being had helpful to it. it maintains relationships with it in the network right on afghanistan's eastern border with pakistan. cease it as a militant group

that pakistan has influence with, not necessarily full control over but relatively more friendly and doesn't want to pick a fight with in spite of the fact that the united states has placed pleasure on pakistan to do that over a period of years. so pakistan has provided a safe thaven allows them to continue in ways it wouldn't have had they taken a firmer line against these groups. >> jon is joining fruss utah. good morning sir. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to know if it's a good thing for america to really want to establish the government we want in these foreign countries instead of letting the democracy happen

what happened in egypt, libya, democratic elections. they're going to have to deal with their own almost civil war like we had to make sure that they get the government they want and not necessarily our outcome can't just be we can establish a government that's friendly to us. it has to be the people and sometimes it takes generations for these governments to really take hold and be by the people. host: thanks for the call. guest: that's a fair point. i wouldn't say that the problem in afghanistan is the united states is opposed to democracy per say. what i would say is that the united states and the rest of the international community and after gans themselves have a long way to go before they have something that looks like a credible and effective democracy takes root. and before we get there there

is the prospect that the country could revert back to if not civil war but extensive conflict throughout the country, extreme violence and that is of concern to the united states. and the reason it's of concern is not simply a humanitarian one or to put who we want in power to afghanistan. it's a concern about what happens in a country like afghanistan when it's at civil war. and what has happened historically is that international terrorist organizations like al qaeda have taken root there and to find places that are ungoverned and to run training camps and so on. that has been problematic in the past. it need not happen again in afghanistan. we're aware of the threat that poses but it's a concern we would have to have if left to its own devices in the political process spirals more out of control and you get a

spike in violence beyond where you are, you could see that happen again. host: the president adopt the afghanistan's strat i didn't. should he have ignored the experts. >> general christ cal came back to washington and what has been called the surge. president obama accepted the great deal of that strategy, accepted a surge in about 30,000 forces, took us up to a high of about 100,000 and accepted the broad notion that such a surge might bring greater stability to the country. what he didn't accept was a couple of things. one would be if the general rals could have asked for what they wanted they would have liked more forces. they would have also liked a longer time line. they were willing to accept

what the president offered in terms of an 18 month surge but many had doubts. many so called experts who supported the idea of a more broad based insurge si effort believed that could not be accomplished or that the corner might not be turned in 18 months so that's what we've seen. now it's going to be a debate for history as to whether if the president had ack wee'sed to a broad longer term effort there whether he could have gotten aafghanistan to turn the corner and people will take both sides of that issue. host: joining us on the phone is the news director in afghanistan thanks for being with us. caller: good evening. let me pick up on something that is stability in the country. it is not a stable country. the latest round of car

bombings with 20 people killed over the last couple of days. but if you look at the country you're living in and covering for the associates press what parts of afghanistan are stable if any? caller: there are parts of afghanistan that are stable. the issue isn't stability but freedom of movement. there have been some gains in the south. there are broad parts of southern afghanistan that are more secure than they were before the surge. eastern afghanistan is a different story. there is still a lot of fighting going on along the pakistan border. there are a couple of provinces that are not governable but we get back to freedom of movement, how safe is it for afghanistan people to move around abdomen it's not that good. afghanistan people can't travel so the situation right now is

stable in parts of the country. there is sort of a stable government but it's far from being a success story. host: and what about pakistan's role in all of this? caller: as you know pakistan has been accused by the u.s. government and other western governments of providing safe havens for some of the taliban and some of the other groups that are infiltrating into afghanistan. now pakistan also reltses that after 2014 when those combat troops leave this country they can't toofered have an unstable afghanistan for the simple reason that a lot of the taliban that are fighting in pakistan to over throw that government, will find safe havens in afghanistan. so pakistan doesn't want an unstable afghanistan post 2014. we've seen lately we've seen

some steps being made by the pakistan government to try to serve like find a way to get the peace talks going again. the high peace council to try to find some form of reconciliation with the insurge jents. the delegation is going to pakistan this week to talk to the pakistan government. most leaders are believed to be living in pakistan. a couple of them we think are in pakistan detention. so pakistan will play lay very big role in post 2014 afghanistan stability. host: more more soldiers killed in pakistan published. many of these deaths result of what some to believe to have been afghanistan soldiers in camouflage killing american

soldiers. has anything changed in the last couple of months? >> they have taken steps to control these insider attacks to varying degrees of success. they've established the guardian angel program where an armed trooper will look out after his fellow soldiers while they're sleeping. they've changed the way they're operating with afghanistan troops. this isn't something that will go away. let's not forget the u.s. government spent billions of dollars growing the afghanistan security forces from 70,000 to 3552,000 now. this has been one of the largest military recruitments training programs that the world has ever seen. the u.s. government spent billions, i think it was $22

billion in 2010 or 2011. so it's not unnatural to see these time of attacks. of course the insurge si will take advantage of this. how do you get tense of thousands of recrews. they have taken steps to find way to prevent this from happening. it's unavoidable we've had 60 killings and 42 attacks. just yesterday two spanish soldiers were wounded by two afghanistan national army soldiers who opened fire on them. so this is something that is quite worrisome because you've got insurjents to worry about and this entire problem inside the afghanistan army that you are training and mentoring. host: i'm going to look at this tweet but it's from one of our

viewers who says the only violence is caused by us being there. how do you respond to our american presence in afghanistan and what contributions we may have played in the violence going on in the country. caller: this is an interesting question. i'm not going to comment on who said this but the taliban say it's foreign forces left this violence would stop because there would be no one to attack. the issue here is it's not just the u.s. military or nato military forces here that are fighting the injurgsi. it's the afghanistan government lls fighting the insurge general si so if all the forces left tomorrow does that mean they will stop fighting the government? i doubt that unless there is some peace process. i don't believe they're going

to give up fighting because the troops are gone. host: thank you very much for being with us. host: how do you respond to that same question, our presence over there? guest: i would agree. it's sort of to not recognize history to recognize they have been at war internally for decades that and some of that was a response to outside forces first the soviet invasion and so on and more recently the u.s. military effort there. but it is not the only reason why they are fighting and it relates tie broader point that is sometimes made that the region itself could manage this problem if the united states pulled its out. that is the pakistan people an the afghanistan people and russians and so on would find a way to come to terms if the

united states would stop throwing its weight around. that is a historical analysis. the region hasn't found a way to keep the region stable and peaceful for much of its history. so there is little reason to anticipate while the united states makes many blunders there and has sparked local liesed responses that are nationalistic efforts to kick the americans out, no doubt. but that's not the only reason for this fight. host: how many u.s. troops in afghanistan? guest: about 70,000 now. host: how many in iraq? guest: almost none. host: good morning. caller: i've spent the last years in iraq and afghanistan. i --

host: why dow go over there in caller: i'm a civilian contractor. i must say that i believe that we must continue with the process. the 2014 deadline a little bit of flexibility one way or the other is not a bad thing. but we must look to 10, 15, 20 years down the road. that is one of the fastest growing cities in the world. their water, sewer, infrastructure and owl of that is already feeling the strain. and the international community and the united states could increase aiding the civilian side. they got the trains to run on time. if we can help the afghanistan people with infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, electric power delivery, water

purification. if we can convince them to play ball and work with them closely 10, 15, years down the road we're looking at a stable afghanistan. and we must not overlook the gee political fact afghanistan is next to iran. host: can you stay on the line. caller: yes. guest: i think the caller is right in terms of observation that we do have a long term strategic interest this this part of the world. and number two i think what he is saying is in line with what the u.s. state department has been saying about the u.s. presence in afghanistan and that is the military presence will draw done 2014 the expectation at least in civilian quarters within the u.s. government is they will try to maintain a civilian presence beyond that. the problem that many analysts in washington including i have with this characterization is a

civilian presence is going to have a hard time working in afghanistan without the kind of stibleliesing presence of the u.s. military. and because i'm concerned that as the military draws down, a relatively untested afghanistan national security force may not be able to maintain to make the kind of work the caller does in afghanistan as possible as it is today. there is a fear you could get a spiraling downward of violence forcing civilians out, fewer civilians to make the country work for effectively and deliver assistance makes more violence more likely and eventually it looks like civil war. and that's the concern that people have is that the military draw down will be too fast to stand up the afghanistan security forces and stand up the country to allow civilians like the caller is doing. host: is the education of the people the answer that live in

the small victim ladges and the mountains? guest: education is an answer but it takes a while to bring somebody from childhood up to maturity and educate them along the way and it takes longer to put into place teachers in a country like afghanistan who are themselves educated enough to teach the children. it's a generational process but a necessary one to achieve healthy societies. but it's not the kind of thing that wins in two years or five years or 18 months in a military surge. these things have to go together. host: we're talking about the war in afghanistan and the troops in that country. as you talk to people in afghanistan based on your travels how do they view america? caller: i've heard nothing but

praise. i don't speak the lang but i've worked with civilians and the military and the american presence is very favorably looked upon, we're helping individual people and bringing security. and everything i've heard is very positive. host: thappings for the call. we'll go to a caller listening from england go ahead. caller: can i speak now? host: you can. caller: in this country we had a peace march recently. [indiscernible] to put it briefly he's putting in to be the leader of pakistan next year when the election comes up and i heard him talking about his political

ambitions. he says because the drones that go over his country that cause the people to be so angry that the young meals of that region are turning towards al qaeda because they're so angry with the drones coming over. and he says if he gets leader of pakistan he's going to have the drones shot down. and that's not my words. it's his words and i just think sometimes actions are taken the road to hell is paved with good intentions and i think a lot of the situation that's going on now in the middle east is that it seems to be the more you go in because you cannot change a culture of centuries over night. that's my point. host: thanks for the call. response. guest: it's a great observation. he is a fascinating pakistan politician. a man to watch as they go

through their own elections. he is somebody who has public cli criticized the use of drones. he continues to do things and says the things the caller described routinely. he is correct in a narrow sense. they are unpopular in pakistan when people are asked around the country they oppose them. that's not surprising. it's plane that is are flying overhead shooting down missiles at people and insen rating them. and the idea that some other country would be doing that in your skies is deeply unappealing. and usually much worse than that. but the story is a little bit more complicated than that. drones that are flying over the border areas between pakistan and afghanistan have been effective at targeting senior terrorist as well as senior members of the taliban fighting

in afghanistan. and by many if not all accounts, the degree of civilian kass al tiss that have taken place has plum metted. the drones are much more careful tactical effective tool than is widely appreciated or than he would admit. and many pakistan people who live in this border area recognize it's not just the drones they've been fighting. it's the drones on the one hand and the terrorist on the other. and the terrorist have disrupted this region, assassinated tribal leaders, have dislocated populations, scared them forced them to flee and changed social networks in this area in ways that make it utterly different from whatted the been historically. so when he says that the drones are the problem. i think he's telling a part of

the story but by no means the whole story and that's what makes this so complicated. host: our guest is a senior fellow on the foreign relations and the author of a new upcoming book no exit the future of the u.s. pakistan relationship. good morning to you sir. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have a question. the reason americans intervention of afghanistan failed -- i would call it failed no matter how everybody else looks at it is because american policy makers do not understand the culture of a country like afghanistan. host: your response. guest: well, i would agree that most americans and most u.s. policy makers find afghanistan difficult if not impossible to

disentangle in all of its complexity. i would say however, it's relatively too simp toll say that's the sum total of why we failed. we failed for a lot of different reasons and at different times for different reasons. i would say at the out set after 9/11 it was not clear within the bush administration whether this would be in fact a kind of a nation making e estate building exercise with an extensive u.s. commiment to afghanistan. all kinds of words were used building democracy getting girls to school and so on. it was a grand program but it was not met by any commiment of resources that would enable such a thing. 10,000 20,000 forces wasn't going to do it. the obama administration reversed the equation, ramped up its level of military

commiment and civilian commiment but on a short time line and with narrower goals. that is counter terrorism and leaving the place better than we found it. i would say both are flawed but in different ways. some have to do with misunderstanding afghanistan. some have to do with problems of resources and time lines and misunderstanding just how hard a problem afghanistan would be even under the best of circumstances. host: we have less than a minute. what piece of advice would you give the president moving ahead? guest: he's going to have a new national security team, hillary clinton will be leaving and so on. right now the strategy in afghanistan does not appear to be working. it's falling apart on multiple fronts. you talk about insider attacks on the security forces, corruption in the afghanistan

government and we're looking at so far, not very promising effort to bring the taliban to the negotiating table. all of this needs to be revisited. the president made it clear heed like to get u.s. forces out by 2014 and the question is whether he needs to stick to that or have a little bit of flexibility there. host: thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we'll be joined tomorrow by fawn johnson as we take a look at the latino vote on super pac citizens united and the $6 billion campaign in 201 and what's next for taxes. we will talk about tax cuts and what to expect in the coming year. that's all tomorrow morning on the washington journal. thanks for joining us on this sunday. i hope you enjoy the rest of

this veterans day. another live view from the arlington national cemetery. news makers is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> today on c-span next news makers with americans for tax reform president grover. fold by our live coverage of the certificate moin at the tom of the unknowns and the